Case C-44/17, Scotch Whisky Association v Michael Klotz, 7 June 2018 (Fifth Chamber)

The CJEU issued a preliminary ruling in a dispute between the protected indication of geographical origin Scotch Whisky and the disputed sign Glen Buchenbach over the right to use the designation Glen. The CJEU provided further clarification of the four protection norms for safeguarding protected indications of geographical origin. Commencing with interpreting the phrase “any direct or indirect commercial use”, the CJEU established that the term “use” refers to the visual appearance of a protected indication covering its use in either an identical or similar form in the disputed sign. The terms “direct” and “indirect” refer to the way in which appearance takes place: the former term covers affixing a disputed sign directly on the product (ie labelling); the latter term comprises other forms of use such as advertising or accompanying documents. Further, the CJEU held that “evocation” means evaluating whether an average European consumer thinks directly of a protected indication of geographical origin when confronted with an infringing sign. Finally, the CJEU averred that assessing whether a disputed sign is used either as an evocation or as a “false and misleading indication” does not depend on the context in which the sign is used.

Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89, OJ L - 8, of 13.2.2008, pp 16–54 [Spirits Regulation].

This case note relates to the recent judgement (23 October 2012) by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case No C-300/10 concerning interrelation of the European Union motor insurance law and the national civil liability regulation. As the civil liability arising from motor traffic accidents is not approximated by the European Union law, its regulation falls within the national law. Yet, application of the national civil liability law shall not undermine the obligation to provide insurance coverage for victims of road traffic accidents. The discussed case concerns a situation when a victim who was not fastened by a seat belt at the moment of a motor traffic accident was injured, and this raises a question whether such victim may be compensated due to contributory negligence. This note provides a brief summary of the previous case law, facts, review of Advocate's General Opinion and the judgment and their analysis.

Case C-442/10, Churchill Insurance Company Limited v Benjamin Wilkinson and Tracy Evans v Equity Claims Limited [2011] ECR I-00000

Article 3 No. 1 of Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, as amended, codified and repealed by Directive 2009/103/EC, OJ L - 103, of 02.05.1972. pp. 1–6. [First Motor Insurance Directive]

Article 2 No. 1 of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended, codified and repealed by Directive 2009/103/EC, OJ L – 8, of 11.01.1984. pp. 17–20. [Second Motor Insurance Directive]

Article 1 No. 1 of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended, codified and repealed by Directive 2009/103/EC, OJ L – 129, of 19.05.1990. pp. 33–35. [Third Motor Insurance Directive]

Cases C-517/14 P and C-519/P, Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. v European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie, unreported 24 October 2014 (Seventh Chamber).

In the two related cases commented on, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) dealt with assessment of locus standi in the case of an applicant who disputed the validity of registration of two indications of geographical origin (IGOs), namely Edam Holland and Gouda Holland, being compound designations and containing a famous generic word designation (name), i.e. Edam and Gouda respectively. The importance of both cases relates, on the one hand, to the fact that registration of these IGOs was challenged on the basis of the generic names Edam and Gouda which are extensively used in practice, occupying a considerable market share. On the other, both cases could be a signal whether the CJEU re–affirms its restrictive approach to assessment of locus standi under Article 263 (4) TFEU. Although the CJEU re–affirmed its longstanding case law on restrictive assessment of locus standi also concerning registration of a compound geographical designation on the basis of a generic name, yet, as is argued in this case note, this approach did not take into account the specifics of registering IGOs (author's summary).

In reviewing two similar cases, the CJEU clarified several essential elements of EU motor insurance law. First, the CJEU clarified the concept of “personal injury” as an insurable risk (another is damage to property) by holding that it also covers non–material damage and the concept of “injured party” by establishing that it also covers the next of kin of a person who died as a result of a road traffic accident. Second, the CJEU affirmed its previous case law that EU Member States are precluded from lowering the minimum insurance coverage as set in the amount of 350 000 euro by EU motor insurance law. In particular, the CJEU found that a Latvian national legal provision which provides fixed insurance redress in the amount of 142 (now 150) euro for non–material damage for the next of kin of a person who died in an accident is incompatible with EU motor insurance law (author's summary).

Case C-82/10, European Commission v Ireland [2011] ECR I-00000

Article 4 of the First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, as amended and repealed by the Solvency II Directive, OJ L – 228, of 16.08.1973. pp. 3–19. [First non-life Directive].

Ireland was found to have failed to fulfil its obligations under the non-life insurance directives by not covering the Voluntary Health Insurance Board, the main health insurer in Ireland, with the supervisory scheme envisaged by those directives. The Court of Justice of the European Union judgment raises vital questions important for the existing exempted insurance institutions.